Homeowners Draw a Line in the Sand Over Dunes

Wall Street Journal ^ | May 20, 2013 | Josh Dawsey

[BlueStateRightist]

Many coastal New Jersey residents are resisting a $1 billion state plan to shield shore-front towns from storms with towering dunes and a mix of protective measures. As some cite fears the sand-replenishment projects would drag down their property values, about 1,800 landowners have declined to sign agreements to allow construction on their property, said Larry Ragonese, a spokesman for the state Department of Environmental Protection. The state Supreme Court last week heard arguments on a resident's lawsuit seeking more money for the agreement, known as an easement, and Gov. Chris Christie called dune opponents "knuckleheads."

[BlueStateRightist]

Unfortunately, like most Americans, many of these landowners want it both ways: less government now when not needed, but more later during a crisis. In the end, why are we encouraging the protection of fragile living environments that periodically are destroyed, with the taxpayer picking up the check?

[Gaffer]

I say let them have it both ways. Only, the won’t be allowed to have any insurance policy that is provided by the US Government. If they want to live in an area that is prone to disaster or such, then they should have to pay the capitalist price based on risk, not government subsidy.

[mbarker12474]

Is it a red line?

[DannyTN]

I think they already are paying the price. Their insurance reflects the cost for their property and they aren’t responsible for the town, just their own property.

I can see the homeowner’s viewpoint. Their home is worth a lot more with an ocean front view, instead of a backside of a dune view.

So if you are going to take from the homeowner in order to protect the town property, then you should compensate the homeowner.

The town has to pay the price too. They built where there was known risk and now they want to mitigate that risk by taking the beach front homeowner’s property and decimating it with dunes.

(I live in TN and own no water front property of any kind.)

[wiggen]

Absolutely. Let them buy insurance at market rates. One day we get to rebuild California at a trillion or so. By that point it won’t even be wholly American any longer in all likelihood.

[Gaffer]

If I were an insurance provider in California, I’d make all correspondence, calls and other interactions be conducted solely in ENGLISH...that should cut down some of the crap.

[wiggen]

Reading and you’re correct.
Simple. Build flood walls behind them. The water will then turn back and flood the house from a second direction.
Of course they’ll sue over this probability as well.

[Vigilanteman]

Speaking for myself, I'm sick and tired of subsidizing rich liberal a**holes (for the most part) who insist on building multi-million dollar homes in beachfront hurricane vulnerable areas.

Yeah, I know it is nice to have a home on the beach, but I can walk the extra 15 minues or so that it takes to climb over a dune for an ocean dip.

I have a modest $120K or so home with the nearest large body of water being Lake Erie, 200 miles or so to the north. Somehow, I survive without the taxpayers picking up the tab for my insurance.

[wiggen]

How ever do you manage?

[Strategerist]

The other issue is the dunes would help protect houses that aren’t on the oceanfront and don’t have an ocean view from flooding.

[Roccus]

.

If you’re lucky enough to live at the beach, you’re lucky enough.

[RightOnTheBorder]

The answer here seems pretty simple to me. Build dunes on the other side of the houses where people already have no view of the ocean. Stop subsidizing homeowners insurance to the beach dwellers and let them pay a market rate based on the risk. The town is protected, nobody loses the view, and the beach houses pick up all the financial risk for living where they want to.

Why is this so hard?

[JimRed]

In my opinion those homeowners have a right to reject use of their property. But they should be made to sign a release freeing the local, state and federal governments from any responsibility for death or destruction and waive any subsidies on their insurance premiums.

They should also be held responsible for any damage to adjoining or nearby properties caused by their refusal.

[Secret Agent Man]

in powerful storms, sand gets washed away. that’s why they bag it. then it stays together. a hurricane sweping across large sand dunes would decimate large free standing sand dunes. and not being bagged the remaining sand would be water-logged. sand is porous. good grief.

[Secret Agent Man]

nope, won’t rebuild ca, because we’ll lose a whole chunk under the ocean, and will have nothing left to rebuild on.

[BenLurkin]

Chris Christie called dune opponents "knuckleheads."

This is what our would-be masters think of property rights.

[Abby4116]

Back in the days of self-responsibility, beachfront homeowners, at their own expense and using their own labor, put up storm fence every fall to build the dunes up to protect their property.

The government did not subsidize insurance nor did they pay to build the dunes.

Harvey Cedars (where the one couple whose comments were cited have a home) is about 3 blocks wide - ocean to bay. These are barrier islands, shifting naturally if no human intervention is used.

Despite what the global warming souls tell us, these storms are not more frequent nor more destructive.

[wiggen]

Is that a promise?

[Abby4116]

South Jersey News

Press of Atlantic City

These are some articles with pictures from the 1962 storm that hit Harvey Cedars. Only difference is now there are MORE houses.

[Lorianne]

Nature batts last.

Dunes are not going to solve the problem of people buidling in high risk areas.